How far ahead is the top one - part II

How far ahead is the top player in any list is a key point to answering the question of whether a high mark set by a player will be reached. I had earlier done a similar analysis for batting. Now I have taken a few Test bowling measures and created a table of the Top-100, subject to qualifying criteria, and assigned each position a percentage relative to the top position. A perusal of these tables will give an idea of the degree of permanence of the top places.

If an active player is at the top of an all-time list, he keeps on widening the gap on the second placed player, unless otherwise the top two or three are also active. This true of the aggregate type of measures. On the other hand in performance related measures, it does not matter since it is possible for later players to catch up with the particular measure.

The tables are shown in a standardised format. The first five entries are shown to get an idea, not just of the top entry, but also the ones immediately following the top. When required, more entries are shown. Then the 50th entry, exactly at mid-point, is shown to get an idea of the % drop. Finally the 100th entry is shown to get a further idea of the table's distribution of the key measure.

Lohmann is nearly as far ahead in Bowling average as Bradman is so far as Batting average is concerned. Notwithstanding all the underlying factors (uncovered pitches, 3-day tests, average amateur batsmen etc), this is a huge difference since we are looking only at the raw numbers here. In fact the top 6 bowlers are all pre-WW1 bowlers.

Then come Wardle, a 50s bowler, Davidson, a 60s bowler and two modern West Indian giants, Marshall and Garner. I would say that the best any modern bowler can hope for is an entry into the top-10, as Muralitharan and Steyn are trying for.

Note how far off the 50th placed bowler, Tate and Doshi, at no.100, are.

The wonderful thing in this table is not the presence of Barnes and Lohmann at the top, that is taken for granted, but how close Muralitharan is to Lohmann. In modern times, to have a wickets per Test of greater than 6 is simply amazing. Let us forget about wickets captured against weaker teams and appreciate the true greatness of this genial giant.

The 50th placed bowler is well above 50% indicating a clustering on top.

This is a pure longevity based table. Muralitharan is ahead by 10% and counting. Since the next active bowler is Ntini and he is 50% off, it is safe to say that Muralitharan is going to add more wickets to his name and keep this achievement a never-to-be-beaten one.

The career wickets tally drops off so drastically that the 50th placed bowler is only at 27%. Also the 100th placed bowler is 83% away.

Bowling accuracy was probably more valued in Tests during 50s and 60s. Goddard and Nadkarni are 50s/60s bowlers and have unimaginable accuracy rates. Can we even imagine an analysis of 32-27-5-0 which Nadkarni essayed in 1964. The best modern bowler in this regard is Edmonds, who is 23% away.

The clustering at the top is so pronounced that Statham, at no.50, is only 30% away. And the 100th placed bowler is less than 40% away.

Lohmann, as expected is on top. But what is surprising is the second place of Steyn and fourth place of Waqar Younis. Steyn is only 14% away but is likely to slip back as he plays more Tests. But one must give credit to Steyn who is second in an all-time list where the pre-WW1 bowlers are expected to reign supreme. No less is Waqar Younis' achievement.

A table of the best bowling performances in a Test or innings does not belong to this analysis since that is a specific single innings/match event and does not warrant such a comparison. For 10 years, no one might reach 10 or 19 wicket mark, and in one week, two bowlers might go past it.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Abhi and Zeeshan - statements like, to quote, "the fact is Gavaskar is better batsman" ... that is not a fact but an opinion. Anantha's blog, I believe, is to bring out more facts.

In 31 tests 59 innings, AB scored 2052 runs with 3 centuries and 14 half centuries at an average of 39.6 against the formidable WI attack. In early 90's, Ambrose, Bishop, and Walsh were almost as good as the original pace quartet!

Abhi - My point was that the great record vs WI is, in reality, not so great. As for seeing the new ball through, the opener should bat for at least more than 1 session. SMG managed that a whopping 20% of innings in 1983 - 1 of 9 innings in WI and 3 of 11 innings in India. He resorted to Sehwag mode as the last resort vs WI. Two of the 3 inns in India (hundred in Delhi and 90 in Ahmedabad) were in Sehwag mode. The last inns of 236* was in his old style but he, actually, was out caught behind off Marshall before crossing 40. Props to him that he converted on this good fortune.
[[
Can we close this line of argument since it is not getting us anywhere and it has no relevance to the article.
Ananth:
]]

Engle
on October 26, 2009, 1:59 GMT

From Cricinfo on Wasim Raja :
"In all he played 11 Tests against West Indies, against attacks including Andy Roberts, Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Colin Croft, making 919 runs at 57.43, an average that only Greg Chappell exceeded during that era."

In fact, he scored 402 runs at home avg. 57.42
And scored 517 runs in WI avg. 57.44

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 25, 2009, 15:19 GMT

Dear Alex, fact is that Gavaskar is better batsman.
Border only score one century when attack had Robert, Croft, Garner and Holding. When he scored 100 runs only Marshall and Garner were there and in his last century none of five were there. So in actual, he scored only one century with strong WI attack.
His overall batting average is only 33.94 at home versus them.
If you are saying that with this record he is excellent against them, I do not think so, with 59 innings, only 3 centuries, runs per inng 34.77, very weak against them.

When Gavaskar played real WI according to you, I think he had already maintained batting average 83 so his average declined. He still maintained average 41.38 which was still more than his overall batting average.

When he scored 147 not out against them Garner, Holding, Marshall and Robert, all four were there. In his last century of 236 not out, three of them were there. So he is excellent against the better attack too in his last phase of career.

Abhi
on October 25, 2009, 14:25 GMT

Alex,
You seem to be making the cardinal sin of assuming that a bunch of stats can “prove” some point. There is always a lot of subjective context beyond a stat, which if not factored in in renders the stat relatively meaningless. Back in the day, the WI pace battery was the most feared in the world. Gavaskar was an opener, unlike the other batsmen you have mentioned. In those days the main “role” of the opener was to see the new ball through- a far cry from the Haydens and Sehwags of today.All Indian batsmen raised on slow, low pitches were assumed to be sitting ducks for the WI quicks – that too when playing in WI. It is always much more difficult to adjust from slow, low pitches to bouncier ones. (Although in some cases, such as Pontings, the reverse may hold).Gavaskar- as an opener; a batsman raised on slow, low pitches; in a team expected to capitulate meekly- was the bulwark for the team. The batting depended on him for a long time then , much as it revolved around Tendulkar through the 90s. All in all, Gavaskar has been remarkable against the quicks. Of course, you will find stats to “prove” whatever point you may chose to make…but when taken in a holistic manner ,with stats as just another prop, Gavaskars role takes on great significance.

Andrew Gray
on October 23, 2009, 9:40 GMT

Hi,
Good article. I was wondering if you good do a an article on "prolific" cricketers. This would be more in tune with all-rounders. The basis would be award "points' for runs, wickets, catches & stumpings awarded - run outs would be great but here is no depth of history on those.
I fiddled around with this once and assigned 1 point per run, 20 points per wicket & 25 points for catches, (catches win matches)!
Under this analysis Gilchrest was the best particularly when dividing by matches played. I think this would be a great way of marking the "worth" of a cricketer.
Thoughts?

alex
on October 22, 2009, 18:53 GMT

Ananth - this is unrelated to this thread but is to reply to Zeeshan's repeated comments on SMG.

Zeeshan --- it is not about singling out a year in SMG's career ... barring 1976, that was the
only time he ever faced the great WI attack. And, he was in good form that year (did quite well vs Pak). You keep citing 13 centuries in 65 innings etc --- FYI, WI attack was so poor in 1971 that players like Sardesai scored heavily! SMG scored heavily when conditions suited him whereas Border scored half centuries consistently. AB faced absolutely hostile WI attack all through his career and still managed 3 centuries & 14 half centuries in 59 outings @avg of 40. SMG has 5 centuries & 3 half centuries in 30 outings @avg of 41 against the real great WI attack. No one is deriding SMG but Gooch and Border performed better vs the real WI attack.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 22, 2009, 5:32 GMT

Dear Alex, there is no doubt about the abilities of Sir. Bradman and he is a legend of cricket.
As far as Gavaskar is concerned, I think he started his career in 1971 and in 1983 his career was near to end or in last phase. Even when he scored 236 not out against WI in 1983, in bowling attack Marshall, Robert and Holding were there. So just taking one specific year from his career is not justice in my eyes. In 1971 he faced Lance Gibbs and Sobers at that time and then later on fast bowlers of them as Robert came in 1974 and then Holding in 1975. His batting average was
83.5 before 1983 so naturally it declined.

Gavaskar scored 13 centuries in 65 innings while Border only 3 in 59 innings with batting average 39.46 as compare to his 65.45. Border never scored 150 or plus against them while he scored 5 times 150 or plus in which three time double tons.

He is the first man in test history who scored 10,000 and also first one to score 30 centuries in test matches.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 20, 2009, 6:48 GMT

Dear Ananth, please find below some corrections.

Gavaskar played 20 innings in 11 test maches against W. Indies in 1983 with 20 or plus scores are seven that are 20, 32, 147, 121, 90, 20 and 236. Next two scores are 19 and 18. 11 scores are in double figure. I think the consistency is not too bad that we can say that it is inconsistent performance. In 20 innings three are 100 or plus and one score is 90. How can we neglect the fact the bowling line was the best for fast bowling. Bowlers are Marshall, Garner, Holding and Robert. Facing all of them together or three or two of them was very very difficult task.
I think Marshall may be the best bowler that cricket has ever produced and remaining three are very near to him.

Gavaskar batting average is near to 60 in forth innings only in test matches showing his mental strength. I think Sunil Gavaskar is the best opener that cricket has ever produced.

alex
on October 20, 2009, 6:06 GMT

Zeeshan - I only pointed out the fallacy in the commonly encountered claim of SMG's great record against the WI pace battery; Bradman belonged to a different era and, I believe, it is unfair to compare players from different eras. In the 80's, Border and Gooch played the WI pace battery much better while Vengsarkar (and Lamb, to some extent) gave comparable performances. Take it from a die hard SMG fan that he really was quite overwhelmed by the WI attack in 1983, the only time he faced the battery (barring 1976).

SMG's lasting greatness, I believe, stems from his technical perfection as well as in the professionalism and apetite for consistent big scores that he instilled in Indian cricket.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 18, 2009, 20:08 GMT

As an example, the average of Gavaskar is only 42 in 11 tests versus the great West Indian attack in 1983 with 20 or plus scores only 4 times in those 19 innings. Yes his average was slightly down but his overall average against W. Indies is 65.45 with 13 centuries and 7 half centuries.

So many are saying he is overrating due to relatively weak attack of them but neglecting the fact that he is one of the best batsman. If he is overrating in this manner then what about Sir Bradman's centuries against England. Were not these centuries overrating or not. If people are ready to give advantage to one player, why not for other player with different era although he faced much difficult bowling as compare to him.

Gavaskar scored 5007 runs in his first 52 test matches with 42 fifty plus scores in which 20 scores are more than 100 runs on 27 different grounds.

alex
on November 3, 2009, 8:41 GMT

Abhi and Zeeshan - statements like, to quote, "the fact is Gavaskar is better batsman" ... that is not a fact but an opinion. Anantha's blog, I believe, is to bring out more facts.

In 31 tests 59 innings, AB scored 2052 runs with 3 centuries and 14 half centuries at an average of 39.6 against the formidable WI attack. In early 90's, Ambrose, Bishop, and Walsh were almost as good as the original pace quartet!

Abhi - My point was that the great record vs WI is, in reality, not so great. As for seeing the new ball through, the opener should bat for at least more than 1 session. SMG managed that a whopping 20% of innings in 1983 - 1 of 9 innings in WI and 3 of 11 innings in India. He resorted to Sehwag mode as the last resort vs WI. Two of the 3 inns in India (hundred in Delhi and 90 in Ahmedabad) were in Sehwag mode. The last inns of 236* was in his old style but he, actually, was out caught behind off Marshall before crossing 40. Props to him that he converted on this good fortune.
[[
Can we close this line of argument since it is not getting us anywhere and it has no relevance to the article.
Ananth:
]]

Engle
on October 26, 2009, 1:59 GMT

From Cricinfo on Wasim Raja :
"In all he played 11 Tests against West Indies, against attacks including Andy Roberts, Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Colin Croft, making 919 runs at 57.43, an average that only Greg Chappell exceeded during that era."

In fact, he scored 402 runs at home avg. 57.42
And scored 517 runs in WI avg. 57.44

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 25, 2009, 15:19 GMT

Dear Alex, fact is that Gavaskar is better batsman.
Border only score one century when attack had Robert, Croft, Garner and Holding. When he scored 100 runs only Marshall and Garner were there and in his last century none of five were there. So in actual, he scored only one century with strong WI attack.
His overall batting average is only 33.94 at home versus them.
If you are saying that with this record he is excellent against them, I do not think so, with 59 innings, only 3 centuries, runs per inng 34.77, very weak against them.

When Gavaskar played real WI according to you, I think he had already maintained batting average 83 so his average declined. He still maintained average 41.38 which was still more than his overall batting average.

When he scored 147 not out against them Garner, Holding, Marshall and Robert, all four were there. In his last century of 236 not out, three of them were there. So he is excellent against the better attack too in his last phase of career.

Abhi
on October 25, 2009, 14:25 GMT

Alex,
You seem to be making the cardinal sin of assuming that a bunch of stats can “prove” some point. There is always a lot of subjective context beyond a stat, which if not factored in in renders the stat relatively meaningless. Back in the day, the WI pace battery was the most feared in the world. Gavaskar was an opener, unlike the other batsmen you have mentioned. In those days the main “role” of the opener was to see the new ball through- a far cry from the Haydens and Sehwags of today.All Indian batsmen raised on slow, low pitches were assumed to be sitting ducks for the WI quicks – that too when playing in WI. It is always much more difficult to adjust from slow, low pitches to bouncier ones. (Although in some cases, such as Pontings, the reverse may hold).Gavaskar- as an opener; a batsman raised on slow, low pitches; in a team expected to capitulate meekly- was the bulwark for the team. The batting depended on him for a long time then , much as it revolved around Tendulkar through the 90s. All in all, Gavaskar has been remarkable against the quicks. Of course, you will find stats to “prove” whatever point you may chose to make…but when taken in a holistic manner ,with stats as just another prop, Gavaskars role takes on great significance.

Andrew Gray
on October 23, 2009, 9:40 GMT

Hi,
Good article. I was wondering if you good do a an article on "prolific" cricketers. This would be more in tune with all-rounders. The basis would be award "points' for runs, wickets, catches & stumpings awarded - run outs would be great but here is no depth of history on those.
I fiddled around with this once and assigned 1 point per run, 20 points per wicket & 25 points for catches, (catches win matches)!
Under this analysis Gilchrest was the best particularly when dividing by matches played. I think this would be a great way of marking the "worth" of a cricketer.
Thoughts?

alex
on October 22, 2009, 18:53 GMT

Ananth - this is unrelated to this thread but is to reply to Zeeshan's repeated comments on SMG.

Zeeshan --- it is not about singling out a year in SMG's career ... barring 1976, that was the
only time he ever faced the great WI attack. And, he was in good form that year (did quite well vs Pak). You keep citing 13 centuries in 65 innings etc --- FYI, WI attack was so poor in 1971 that players like Sardesai scored heavily! SMG scored heavily when conditions suited him whereas Border scored half centuries consistently. AB faced absolutely hostile WI attack all through his career and still managed 3 centuries & 14 half centuries in 59 outings @avg of 40. SMG has 5 centuries & 3 half centuries in 30 outings @avg of 41 against the real great WI attack. No one is deriding SMG but Gooch and Border performed better vs the real WI attack.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 22, 2009, 5:32 GMT

Dear Alex, there is no doubt about the abilities of Sir. Bradman and he is a legend of cricket.
As far as Gavaskar is concerned, I think he started his career in 1971 and in 1983 his career was near to end or in last phase. Even when he scored 236 not out against WI in 1983, in bowling attack Marshall, Robert and Holding were there. So just taking one specific year from his career is not justice in my eyes. In 1971 he faced Lance Gibbs and Sobers at that time and then later on fast bowlers of them as Robert came in 1974 and then Holding in 1975. His batting average was
83.5 before 1983 so naturally it declined.

Gavaskar scored 13 centuries in 65 innings while Border only 3 in 59 innings with batting average 39.46 as compare to his 65.45. Border never scored 150 or plus against them while he scored 5 times 150 or plus in which three time double tons.

He is the first man in test history who scored 10,000 and also first one to score 30 centuries in test matches.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 20, 2009, 6:48 GMT

Dear Ananth, please find below some corrections.

Gavaskar played 20 innings in 11 test maches against W. Indies in 1983 with 20 or plus scores are seven that are 20, 32, 147, 121, 90, 20 and 236. Next two scores are 19 and 18. 11 scores are in double figure. I think the consistency is not too bad that we can say that it is inconsistent performance. In 20 innings three are 100 or plus and one score is 90. How can we neglect the fact the bowling line was the best for fast bowling. Bowlers are Marshall, Garner, Holding and Robert. Facing all of them together or three or two of them was very very difficult task.
I think Marshall may be the best bowler that cricket has ever produced and remaining three are very near to him.

Gavaskar batting average is near to 60 in forth innings only in test matches showing his mental strength. I think Sunil Gavaskar is the best opener that cricket has ever produced.

alex
on October 20, 2009, 6:06 GMT

Zeeshan - I only pointed out the fallacy in the commonly encountered claim of SMG's great record against the WI pace battery; Bradman belonged to a different era and, I believe, it is unfair to compare players from different eras. In the 80's, Border and Gooch played the WI pace battery much better while Vengsarkar (and Lamb, to some extent) gave comparable performances. Take it from a die hard SMG fan that he really was quite overwhelmed by the WI attack in 1983, the only time he faced the battery (barring 1976).

SMG's lasting greatness, I believe, stems from his technical perfection as well as in the professionalism and apetite for consistent big scores that he instilled in Indian cricket.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on October 18, 2009, 20:08 GMT

As an example, the average of Gavaskar is only 42 in 11 tests versus the great West Indian attack in 1983 with 20 or plus scores only 4 times in those 19 innings. Yes his average was slightly down but his overall average against W. Indies is 65.45 with 13 centuries and 7 half centuries.

So many are saying he is overrating due to relatively weak attack of them but neglecting the fact that he is one of the best batsman. If he is overrating in this manner then what about Sir Bradman's centuries against England. Were not these centuries overrating or not. If people are ready to give advantage to one player, why not for other player with different era although he faced much difficult bowling as compare to him.

Gavaskar scored 5007 runs in his first 52 test matches with 42 fifty plus scores in which 20 scores are more than 100 runs on 27 different grounds.

Engle
on October 15, 2009, 17:13 GMT

During the 80's when pacers ran amok, there was a real fear that spinners were a dying breed in the Test arena. The only spinner who held the fort was Abdul Qadir, a leggie at that, making his accomplishments all the more outstanding. I wonder if any other bowler stood out from amongst his ilk during his time as much as Qadir did.

Look at the names just before his time: Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Venkat, Gibbs, Underwood.

And the names after him : Warne, Kumble, Murali, Harbie, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed.

But during his time : Nobody noteworthy

Barnes remains the one bowler I would most want to watch in action. In a match where he was not able to extract some batsman, he is reputed to have said " They're not batting well enough for me to get them out ". Cute.
[[
Engle
You are providing some nice insights. Thanks.
Ananth:
]]

alex
on October 14, 2009, 11:54 GMT

Ananth - this is going off a bit on tangent but is to respond to Xolile's lament that statistics make people sing praises of Lohmann and Barnes.
He could be right but unfortunately, not having seen these players, the final numbers is what remains and hence such praises will always be sung; your multiple tables do help gain a better perspective though.

A vivid recent example is that of people praising Gavaskar as the best ever opening batsman since Hobbs, and citing his record against the WI pace battery. In reality, Gavaskar had monster performances vs weak WI bowling in 1971 and 1979. He did very well against an excellent
WI attack in 1976 (avg: 66 vs Holding & Roberts). He averaged 42 in 11 tests vs the great WI attack in 1983 but, more important, crossed 20 only 4 times in those 19 innings. Holding and the late Marshall had noted that down. Yet another example is Ken Barrington.

Xolile
on October 14, 2009, 10:08 GMT

Ananth,
I was merely arguing that statistics and flattering words by Neville Cardus do not make Barnes a great player. The Ten Doeschate example was given because I find it interesting and, to some extent, relevant. By the way, I agree that Ten Doeschate is an excellent player. He has been a consistent performer for both Essex and the Netherlands. It is a pity that we do not get to see more of him at the highest level.

I am aware in some of your previous analyses you have made every effort to adjust career averages to reflect both the depth and quality of the underlying numbers, and that you have explicitly stated that these tables have deliberately been presented on an unadjusted basis. So I will let the matter rest.
[[
Deon
Thanks.
Ananth:
]]

alex
on October 14, 2009, 7:04 GMT

Ananth - great tables as usual. I have a suggestion based on the Ntini comments ... he has a poor away record. So, it might be good to repeat the analysis for home and away conditions.

Xolile should note that Barnes was recognized as the best bowler of his generation by his contemporaries. Even later generation players, such as Bradman and O'Reilly, considered him to be a yardstick (see his player page on Cricinfo).

Xolile
on October 13, 2009, 12:28 GMT

Here are the top five ODI batsmen and bowlers based on averages since 1 January 2000:

Can you spot the odd one out? Interesting that he appears in both lists. Future generations may look at these stats and start singing his praises. We all know they shouldn’t. For similar reasons we should stop taking Lohman and Barnes seriously.
[[
Deon
This is the first time I have noticed a lack of balance in your comments.
You may have reasons for not accepting the bowling exploits of Lohmann and Barnes. It is the feeling of most that certainly Barnes was very good. Anyhow, these figures in most analysis have got adjusted. Barnes' adjusted bowling average might hover around the 20 mark, somewhat similar to Wardle/Davidson/Marshal. Why is it that you are finding it difficult to accept that Barnes was as good as Davidson.
However your comparisons are quite ridiculous. First of all you are being very unfair to a wonderful cricketer, ten Doeshate. Granted most of his runs and wickets might be against the second rung teams. However it is also a fact that he lacks the batting, bowling and fielding support which are enjoyed by the other well-known names you have mentioned. Playing for a weak team, he has performed admirably year after year.
Let me also add that I do Ratings work for Suzuki-Maruti. The link is on Cricinfo home page. Even after adjusting these figures because of quality of opposition, ten Doeshate is right on top there. Ratings work is not just to push the Pontings/Tendulkars/Dhonis on top. Anyone can do that. It is also to recognize the exploits of players from unfancied teams.
Ananth:
]]

ted
on October 13, 2009, 11:30 GMT

interesting on many levels.but barnes and lohmann took their wickets on the conditions that were laid out before them.every other bowler would have taken them with a big smile on their face just like batsman rub their hands together when they face the recent pitches.

Sesha
on October 13, 2009, 8:36 GMT

Wickets per match is one of the best measure to understand the burden on a single bowler and also the impact he has on the result....

Off the current bowlers baring Murali only Steyn, Johnson, Bhaji & B Lee have >4 wickets per match. Not many would object this is the list of best bowlers on show currently in Test match cricket. Striking fact is both Warne & McGrath have >4.5 wickets per match and assuming they played 50 matches together they accounted for all wickets in one innings and was left to others to take wickets in the other innings :-)

Xolile
on October 13, 2009, 6:57 GMT

Barnes' best Test performances came on wet wickets, sticky wickets and matting. If you exclude these matches from his stats his career bowling average quickly increases to around 24.

Moreover, his bowling average in the County Championship was 19.71 – which at the time wasn't very good at all.

It is a bit frustrating that Lohman and Barnes always make their way to the top of the statistical rankings, and that cricket writers and historians keep on singing their praises.
[[
Deon
Almost always when we do bowling analysis, we do put in riders. Alternately as I have done many times, we do analysis by era. I have also adjusted bowling/batting averages by era. It is just that this is indeed a raw figures based table and I did not feel the need to any adjustment work.
Ananth:
]]

Jimmy
on October 13, 2009, 2:49 GMT

Very pleased to see Waqar up there, some of my fav cricket memories are watching Wasim & waqar. And it's always great to discover new (old) talents, I can't believe I'd never heard of Alan Davidson before!
I think it's important though to incorporate the strength of the attack/weakness of the opposition & number of overs bowled in your analyses where relevant.
For example, Murali = 6.07 wkts/test, but he also does the lions share of the bowling averaging 55 overs/test! While Warne = 4.88 wkts/test but bowled 20% less overs per Test than Murali.
You can't take wickets if you're not bowling.
Also, the SL attack during Murali's career is hardly inspiring...only 2 out of the 10 bowlers to have bowled the most overs during his career avg <30, while for Warne, 8 of 10 avg <30.
None of that changes the fact that Murali takes buckets of wickets for not much but it adds some perspective.

Sesha
on October 13, 2009, 1:43 GMT

Hi Ananth,

Just a small correction, among the current bowlers after Murali Ntini has the highest # wickets and not Harbhajan. This is just to point out what a great talent Ntini is and he is such an unsung hero...
[[
Sesha & others
My apologies to Ntini, that wonderful fast bowler for overlooking him. My mistake and the article has since been corrected.
Ananth:
]]

Xolile
on October 12, 2009, 19:40 GMT

In the matches Lohman played, the other leading English bowlers (Briggs, Barnes, Peel and Martin) took more wickets than Lohman (129) at an better average (10.39). It really is a pitty that this obscure player will top the career bowling averages forever.
[[
Deon
The other way of looking at it is that, in the matches under consideration, Lohmann was nearly as good as the other four bowlers. To me they are all similar, difficult to fathom. Quite difficult to accept averages of 15 or below. However these are facts.
Ananth:
]]

Pelham Barton
on October 12, 2009, 19:02 GMT

Another interesting analysis.

One small point. Your table headed "bowling accuracy" is misnamed: it really should be "economy".

Khalil Sawant
on October 12, 2009, 16:46 GMT

Its a pity Waqar retired so early.
Barnes, my favourite is there :) as always

Ravi
on October 12, 2009, 14:14 GMT

Another good article Ananth. A few observations.
1) I wonder if there were so few changes in the pitch conditions and style (averages etc) of batting from 1877 to 1914 to call that period as 'pre-WWI' or is there merit in 2 periods within that era? Lohmann was dead before Barnes debuted. Barnes played mostly against a good Aussie batting side incl. Darling, Clem Hill and Trumper possbily eroding his average, accuracy and strike rate a bit.
2) Looking at SL's tour programme, Murali could improve even more his total wickets, WpT, strike rate; & to some extent his average. A great bolwer on all surfaces and match conditions. More so taking into account the constant and often harsh scrutiny.
3) Is M Ntini still active? If yes he is 2nd placed current player with 50% score.
4) In Ntini and Steyn, SAfrica possess two bowlers featuring in 2 separate lists. Reminds me of the English attack in the 05 Ashes.

No featured comments at the moment.

Ravi
on October 12, 2009, 14:14 GMT

Another good article Ananth. A few observations.
1) I wonder if there were so few changes in the pitch conditions and style (averages etc) of batting from 1877 to 1914 to call that period as 'pre-WWI' or is there merit in 2 periods within that era? Lohmann was dead before Barnes debuted. Barnes played mostly against a good Aussie batting side incl. Darling, Clem Hill and Trumper possbily eroding his average, accuracy and strike rate a bit.
2) Looking at SL's tour programme, Murali could improve even more his total wickets, WpT, strike rate; & to some extent his average. A great bolwer on all surfaces and match conditions. More so taking into account the constant and often harsh scrutiny.
3) Is M Ntini still active? If yes he is 2nd placed current player with 50% score.
4) In Ntini and Steyn, SAfrica possess two bowlers featuring in 2 separate lists. Reminds me of the English attack in the 05 Ashes.

Khalil Sawant
on October 12, 2009, 16:46 GMT

Its a pity Waqar retired so early.
Barnes, my favourite is there :) as always

Pelham Barton
on October 12, 2009, 19:02 GMT

Another interesting analysis.

One small point. Your table headed "bowling accuracy" is misnamed: it really should be "economy".

Xolile
on October 12, 2009, 19:40 GMT

In the matches Lohman played, the other leading English bowlers (Briggs, Barnes, Peel and Martin) took more wickets than Lohman (129) at an better average (10.39). It really is a pitty that this obscure player will top the career bowling averages forever.
[[
Deon
The other way of looking at it is that, in the matches under consideration, Lohmann was nearly as good as the other four bowlers. To me they are all similar, difficult to fathom. Quite difficult to accept averages of 15 or below. However these are facts.
Ananth:
]]

Sesha
on October 13, 2009, 1:43 GMT

Hi Ananth,

Just a small correction, among the current bowlers after Murali Ntini has the highest # wickets and not Harbhajan. This is just to point out what a great talent Ntini is and he is such an unsung hero...
[[
Sesha & others
My apologies to Ntini, that wonderful fast bowler for overlooking him. My mistake and the article has since been corrected.
Ananth:
]]

Jimmy
on October 13, 2009, 2:49 GMT

Very pleased to see Waqar up there, some of my fav cricket memories are watching Wasim & waqar. And it's always great to discover new (old) talents, I can't believe I'd never heard of Alan Davidson before!
I think it's important though to incorporate the strength of the attack/weakness of the opposition & number of overs bowled in your analyses where relevant.
For example, Murali = 6.07 wkts/test, but he also does the lions share of the bowling averaging 55 overs/test! While Warne = 4.88 wkts/test but bowled 20% less overs per Test than Murali.
You can't take wickets if you're not bowling.
Also, the SL attack during Murali's career is hardly inspiring...only 2 out of the 10 bowlers to have bowled the most overs during his career avg <30, while for Warne, 8 of 10 avg <30.
None of that changes the fact that Murali takes buckets of wickets for not much but it adds some perspective.

Xolile
on October 13, 2009, 6:57 GMT

Barnes' best Test performances came on wet wickets, sticky wickets and matting. If you exclude these matches from his stats his career bowling average quickly increases to around 24.

Moreover, his bowling average in the County Championship was 19.71 – which at the time wasn't very good at all.

It is a bit frustrating that Lohman and Barnes always make their way to the top of the statistical rankings, and that cricket writers and historians keep on singing their praises.
[[
Deon
Almost always when we do bowling analysis, we do put in riders. Alternately as I have done many times, we do analysis by era. I have also adjusted bowling/batting averages by era. It is just that this is indeed a raw figures based table and I did not feel the need to any adjustment work.
Ananth:
]]

Sesha
on October 13, 2009, 8:36 GMT

Wickets per match is one of the best measure to understand the burden on a single bowler and also the impact he has on the result....

Off the current bowlers baring Murali only Steyn, Johnson, Bhaji & B Lee have >4 wickets per match. Not many would object this is the list of best bowlers on show currently in Test match cricket. Striking fact is both Warne & McGrath have >4.5 wickets per match and assuming they played 50 matches together they accounted for all wickets in one innings and was left to others to take wickets in the other innings :-)

ted
on October 13, 2009, 11:30 GMT

interesting on many levels.but barnes and lohmann took their wickets on the conditions that were laid out before them.every other bowler would have taken them with a big smile on their face just like batsman rub their hands together when they face the recent pitches.

Xolile
on October 13, 2009, 12:28 GMT

Here are the top five ODI batsmen and bowlers based on averages since 1 January 2000:

Can you spot the odd one out? Interesting that he appears in both lists. Future generations may look at these stats and start singing his praises. We all know they shouldn’t. For similar reasons we should stop taking Lohman and Barnes seriously.
[[
Deon
This is the first time I have noticed a lack of balance in your comments.
You may have reasons for not accepting the bowling exploits of Lohmann and Barnes. It is the feeling of most that certainly Barnes was very good. Anyhow, these figures in most analysis have got adjusted. Barnes' adjusted bowling average might hover around the 20 mark, somewhat similar to Wardle/Davidson/Marshal. Why is it that you are finding it difficult to accept that Barnes was as good as Davidson.
However your comparisons are quite ridiculous. First of all you are being very unfair to a wonderful cricketer, ten Doeshate. Granted most of his runs and wickets might be against the second rung teams. However it is also a fact that he lacks the batting, bowling and fielding support which are enjoyed by the other well-known names you have mentioned. Playing for a weak team, he has performed admirably year after year.
Let me also add that I do Ratings work for Suzuki-Maruti. The link is on Cricinfo home page. Even after adjusting these figures because of quality of opposition, ten Doeshate is right on top there. Ratings work is not just to push the Pontings/Tendulkars/Dhonis on top. Anyone can do that. It is also to recognize the exploits of players from unfancied teams.
Ananth:
]]